Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
4.] The Examiner argues that the statement illustrates that
Hillenius “realizes the expediency of using different
potentials.” [Answer, page 4.]
Appellant argues on pages 4 and 5 of the brief that
Hillenius does not teach the Appellant’s claimed limitations as
required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant argues
that Hillenius does not disclose biasing the conductors at a
potential different from that of the substrate. Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s interpretation of Hillenius’ statement, that
the bias of the conductive layer 30 need not be identical to the
potential of the underlying tub, is incorrect. Appellant asserts
that the reference is simply suggesting that the conductive layer
need not be tied, or electrically connected, to the same
potential as the substrate. [Brief, page 5.] In support for his
position, Appellant points to the summary of Hillenius (column 1,
lines 42 through 51) which emphasizes “electrically” coupling the
conductive layer and the substrate and maintaining the two at the
same potential. [Brief, page 4.]
Upon a careful review of Hillenius, we agree with
Appellant’s position that the reference fails to disclose a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007